[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:51:26 +0200 |
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:24, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
> No, I'm not saying that. I have no problem with the behavior of Emacs 22 and
> before.
Aha. Sorry for misrepresenting your point.
> Letting RET complete using prefix completion is not problematic in the way
> that
> letting it do so with partial completion is. With only prefix completion,
> `dolis
> RET' can only complete to something that has `dolis' as a prefix. When there
> is
> only one such completion, it is not very hard to guess what that is.
But there's not necessarily just one completion. If you have cl loaded,
C-h f defu <RET> => defun
but it could also be `defun*'.
> That is, with prefix completion the gap between what is known (the input) and
> what is unknown (the completion) is small and predictable. If you choose to
> hit
> RET, it's because you pretty much know what you're going to get.
I don't think so, because <RET> is also a form of completion:
C-h f buffer-face <RET> => "buffer-face-"
<RET> => "Possible completions are:"
> That
> means both (a) it is unlikely that the sole completion would be much longer
> and
> therefore hard to guess and (b) it is not unreasonable for both the program
> and
> the user to consider the input as pretty much the whole function name.
It is not unreasonable, of course. But neither it is unreasonable the
opposite: to understand RET as, "if there's only one completion, give
me that". I think it's useful.
> IOW, RET, with the meaning "this is what I want" fits well here. RET in that
> sense does not fit well with partial completion, where your input could
> complete
> to pretty much anything.
It's a matter of tastes, I think.
> That's one solution I see: not ask for confirmation except when the completion
> does not have the input as a prefix.
That seems reasonable, though surely there's people who will feel as
strongly about it as you feel about the current default behavior :-)
Juanma
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Drew Adams, 2009/10/13
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Juanma Barranquero, 2009/10/13
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Drew Adams, 2009/10/13
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/13
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Drew Adams, 2009/10/14
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/14
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Drew Adams, 2009/10/14
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/14
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Juanma Barranquero, 2009/10/13
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Drew Adams, 2009/10/14
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function,
Juanma Barranquero <=
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Drew Adams, 2009/10/14
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/14
- bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function, Drew Adams, 2009/10/14